ISO 9001 documentation structure is outlined in the ISO 10013 Standard - Guidelines for Developing Quality Manuals. This standard recommends using a three-level structure. In practice, many companies use four-level documentation model that includes records. 4-level quality management system is shown below:
Quality Manual - level 1
Procedures - level 2
Instructions - level 3
Records - level 4
Interestingly, how are we going to start our quality manual without knowing what standard this manual is for? The quality policy supposes to define it. The policy defines what standard or standards, a company wants to comply with. If you like this idea, your QMS will contain five levels as in the following list:
Quality Policy - level 1
Quality Manual - level 2
Procedures - level 3
Instructions - level 4
Records - level 5
Document titles for your ISO 9001 QMS
Some companies use very "wordy" titles for their documents. One of companies I worked with named their Procurement procedure as "Standard Operating Procedure for Purchasing and Vendor Control." While extremely descriptive, this title is not efficient.
It is a very typical convention in the medical device manufacturing and other regulated industries to call the second-level documentation Standard Operating Procedures, known as SOPs. Unless one has a level called "Non-standard Operating Procedures," I really do not see a practical or economical reason for long titles like these. As long as the short name conveys the idea and leads us to the right place, let's use it. I will promote this optimization and reduction of waste approach throughout this publication. Let's not make things more complicated than they practically need to be.
Numbering your documents
No standard prescribes to give a part or a document its number. It is an industry standard to give a document or a component its name, number and a revision level. Similar to part titles that we discussed above, document numbering conventions are often also may be optimized and simplified.
One of my clients runs a small company of some 120 employees. Their documentation control procedure prescribed two numeration systems that dependent on the type of a document. QMS documents had numbers like XX-XXX, and production parts required part number format as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000048-002. Folks on the floor called it "four-eight."
One can certainly use these long-long numbers, but is it practical? So far I did not meet a single company that could justify such an approach. When I audited this client, the organization had less than 250 documents. There were no indications that the company will significantly grow. Therefore, to use document number format allowing hundreds of thousands of numbers could hardly be justified. The most unreadable part numbers I had to deal with was at a mid size company with 13-digit alphanumeric part number format! Try to write those in your audit report!
If you are developing or optimizing your ISO 9001 quality management system, consider a simple rule: "The shorter - the better". If you are constructing a hydro electric plant or building an aircraft carrier, you will need millions of parts. To number this kind of inventory, one will definitely need long numbers. If not, think optimization. Once I audited a company that numbered their documents 303. 304, 305, etc. They deserve applauds!
There is another opportunity for improvement of many QMS - part number designation. Many companies relate a document number to a document type. For example, 20-xxxx indicates a procedure, 30-xxxx indicates a drawing, SOP-xxxx indicates a standard operating procedure, etc. My practice with a few QMS that used designation approaches showed that "no designation" systems are more practical. Several QMS that used designation I have worked with have failed. Not long ago, one of my clients mentioned that they ran out of range in their document numbering format. The QMS initially permitted for identifying suppliers through a two-digit identifier within the part number. While the company grew, the number of supplier increased beyond expectations and eventually the company needed more than 99 suppliers. This resulted in the document number format to being able to support new needs.
An alternative approach to part numbering is a "no designation" system, where parts are given sequential unique numbers within a specified format, regardless of their type, material, application or other attributes. After all, isn't the part title the best designator? Seriously, through my entire professional career, I worked only with one company that did not use even document numbers. Their documents were simply identified by titles and a two-digit revision level, like The Prefect Manual 01. - 15246
Quality Manual - level 1
Procedures - level 2
Instructions - level 3
Records - level 4
Interestingly, how are we going to start our quality manual without knowing what standard this manual is for? The quality policy supposes to define it. The policy defines what standard or standards, a company wants to comply with. If you like this idea, your QMS will contain five levels as in the following list:
Quality Policy - level 1
Quality Manual - level 2
Procedures - level 3
Instructions - level 4
Records - level 5
Document titles for your ISO 9001 QMS
Some companies use very "wordy" titles for their documents. One of companies I worked with named their Procurement procedure as "Standard Operating Procedure for Purchasing and Vendor Control." While extremely descriptive, this title is not efficient.
It is a very typical convention in the medical device manufacturing and other regulated industries to call the second-level documentation Standard Operating Procedures, known as SOPs. Unless one has a level called "Non-standard Operating Procedures," I really do not see a practical or economical reason for long titles like these. As long as the short name conveys the idea and leads us to the right place, let's use it. I will promote this optimization and reduction of waste approach throughout this publication. Let's not make things more complicated than they practically need to be.
Numbering your documents
No standard prescribes to give a part or a document its number. It is an industry standard to give a document or a component its name, number and a revision level. Similar to part titles that we discussed above, document numbering conventions are often also may be optimized and simplified.
One of my clients runs a small company of some 120 employees. Their documentation control procedure prescribed two numeration systems that dependent on the type of a document. QMS documents had numbers like XX-XXX, and production parts required part number format as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000048-002. Folks on the floor called it "four-eight."
One can certainly use these long-long numbers, but is it practical? So far I did not meet a single company that could justify such an approach. When I audited this client, the organization had less than 250 documents. There were no indications that the company will significantly grow. Therefore, to use document number format allowing hundreds of thousands of numbers could hardly be justified. The most unreadable part numbers I had to deal with was at a mid size company with 13-digit alphanumeric part number format! Try to write those in your audit report!
If you are developing or optimizing your ISO 9001 quality management system, consider a simple rule: "The shorter - the better". If you are constructing a hydro electric plant or building an aircraft carrier, you will need millions of parts. To number this kind of inventory, one will definitely need long numbers. If not, think optimization. Once I audited a company that numbered their documents 303. 304, 305, etc. They deserve applauds!
There is another opportunity for improvement of many QMS - part number designation. Many companies relate a document number to a document type. For example, 20-xxxx indicates a procedure, 30-xxxx indicates a drawing, SOP-xxxx indicates a standard operating procedure, etc. My practice with a few QMS that used designation approaches showed that "no designation" systems are more practical. Several QMS that used designation I have worked with have failed. Not long ago, one of my clients mentioned that they ran out of range in their document numbering format. The QMS initially permitted for identifying suppliers through a two-digit identifier within the part number. While the company grew, the number of supplier increased beyond expectations and eventually the company needed more than 99 suppliers. This resulted in the document number format to being able to support new needs.
An alternative approach to part numbering is a "no designation" system, where parts are given sequential unique numbers within a specified format, regardless of their type, material, application or other attributes. After all, isn't the part title the best designator? Seriously, through my entire professional career, I worked only with one company that did not use even document numbers. Their documents were simply identified by titles and a two-digit revision level, like The Prefect Manual 01. - 15246
About the Author:
Learn more about ISO 9001 documentation and order your Quality Management System tempales today!
